{"id":8129,"date":"2014-07-06T22:15:36","date_gmt":"2014-07-06T16:45:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=8129"},"modified":"2014-07-07T09:07:31","modified_gmt":"2014-07-07T03:37:31","slug":"cit-vs-vector-shipping-services-p-ltd-supreme-court-depts-slp-against-high-courts-verdict-that-s-40aia-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-of-31st-march-and-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-vector-shipping-services-p-ltd-supreme-court-depts-slp-against-high-courts-verdict-that-s-40aia-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-of-31st-march-and-not\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1289\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1289&varname2=vector_shipping_SLP_dismissal.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (vector_shipping_SLP_dismissal.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nDept&#8217;s SLP against High Court&#8217;s verdict that s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to amounts \u201cpayable\u201d as of 31st March and not to amounts already \u201cpaid\u201d during the year dismissed<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-vector-shipping-services-p-ltd-allahabad-high-court-s-40aia-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-of-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already-paid-during-the-year-merilyn-s\/\">CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd<\/a><\/strong> 357 ITR 642, the Allahabad High Court held that disallowance u\/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts \u201cpayable\u201d as of 31st March and not to amounts already \u201cpaid\u201d during the year. The majority judgement in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-vs-acit-itat-visakhapatnam-special-bench-s-40aia-tds-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-at-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already\/\">Merilyn Shipping<\/a><\/strong> 136 ITD 23 (SB) was approved. The department filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The said SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court <em>in limine<\/em>. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">Unfortunately, though the Dept has issued a detailed <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/s-40aia-tds-disallowance-cbdt-issues-circular-to-clarify-stand\/\">Circular No. 10\/DV\/2013 dated 15.12.2013<\/a><\/strong> on the point, it appears to have omitted to draw the Supreme Court&#8217;s attention to the Circular and the judgements in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-crescent-export-syndicate-calcutta-high-court-s-40aia-tds-special-bench-verdict-in-merilyn-shipping-is-not-good-law\/\">Crescent Export Syndicate<\/a><\/strong> 216 TM 258 (Cal)\/  <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-md-jakir-hossain-mondal-calcutta-high-court-s-40aia-tds-special-bench-verdict-in-merilyn-shipping-is-not-good-law\/\">Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal<\/a><\/strong> 33 TM.com 123 (Cal) and <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-sikandarkhan-n-tunvar-gujarat-high-court-s-40aia-tds-special-bench-verdict-in-merilyn-shipping-is-not-good-law\/\">Sikandarkhan Tunvar<\/a><\/strong> 357 ITR 312 (Guj) which have taken a view contrary to that of the Allahabad High Court. As to the legal effect of an <em>in limine<\/em> dismissal of a SLP see <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/articles_new\/index.php\/special-leave-petitions-the-complete-law\/\">Special Leave Petitions: The complete law<\/a><\/strong> &#038; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/articles_new\/index.php\/the-law-of-judicial-precedents-contempt-of-court\/\">The Law of Judicial Precedents &#038; Contempt of Court<\/a><\/strong><\/strong><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\nDept&#8217;s SLP against High Court&#8217;s verdict that s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to amounts \u201cpayable\u201d as of 31st March and not to amounts already \u201cpaid\u201d during the year dismissed<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-vector-shipping-services-p-ltd-allahabad-high-court-s-40aia-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-of-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already-paid-during-the-year-merilyn-s\/\">CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd<\/a><\/strong> 357 ITR 642, the Allahabad High Court held that disallowance u\/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts \u201cpayable\u201d as of 31st March and not to amounts already \u201cpaid\u201d during the year. The majority judgement in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-merilyn-shipping-transports-vs-acit-itat-visakhapatnam-special-bench-s-40aia-tds-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-at-31st-march-and-not-to-amounts-already\/\">Merilyn Shipping<\/a><\/strong> 136 ITD 23 (SB) was approved. The department filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The said SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court <em>in limine<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-vector-shipping-services-p-ltd-supreme-court-depts-slp-against-high-courts-verdict-that-s-40aia-disallowance-applies-only-to-amounts-payable-as-of-31st-march-and-not\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}